Ayırt Etme Gücüne Sahip Küçüğün Kusura Dayanan Haksız Fiil Sorumluluğuna Özgü Bazı Değerlendirmeler
Hülya Atlan GürerHukukumuzda ve kaynak İsviçre hukukunda, ayırt etme gücüne sahip küçüklerin kusura dayanan haksız fiillerinden sorumlu oldukları kuralı geçerlidir. Dolayısıyla kanun koyucu, sınırlı ehliyetsiz küçükler ile tam fiil ehliyetine sahip yetişkinler arasında haksız fiil sorumluluğu bakımından bir fark gözetmemiştir. Ancak bu kural, anayasal ve uluslararası düzeyde korunan küçüklere (çocuklara) ilişkin özelliklerin gözetilmesine engel değildir. Bu anlamda hem sorumluluğun kurulması hem de tazminatın belirlenmesi aşamasında, tazminat yükümlüsünün küçük olmasından doğan özelliklerin göz önünde bulundurulması gerekir. Her şeyden önce sorumluluğun doğabilmesi için küçüğün ayırt etme gücüne sahip olduğunun tespit edilmesi gerekir. Yetişkinlerin aksine küçükler bakımından ayırt etme gücünün varlığı karinesinden hareket edilemeyeceğinden, bazı hallerde bunun tespiti oldukça güç olabilir. Bu konuda somut duruma göre bir değerlendirme yapılacak olmakla birlikte, özellikle doktrinde ve yargı uygulamasında benimsenen yaş basamakları ayırt etme gücünün belirlenmesinde bir kılavuz işlevi görebilir. Bu yaş basamakları, ayırt etme gücünün tespiti bakımından hâkime yol gösterecek yardımcı bir kaynak niteliğindedir.
Sorumluluğun kurulmasından başka, tazminatın belirlenmesi aşamasında da tazminat yükümlüsünün küçük olmasının doğurduğu özelliğin dikkate alınması gerekecektir. Bu özellik, yaş küçüklüğünün tazminatın belirlenmesinde bir indirim nedeni olarak göz önünde bulundurulması biçiminde ortaya çıkar. Kanunda bu konuda bir açıklık olmamakla birlikte doktrinde yaş küçüklüğü, hafif kusura dayanan bir indirim nedeni olarak değerlendirilmektedir. İndirimin dayanağının hafif kusur olarak gösterilmesi yeterli bir gerekçe oluşturmadığı gibi, bazı yönlerden isabetli olmayan sonuçlara da yol açabilir. İndirimin dayanağı kusurun ağırlığında değil, bizzat çocukların ve gençlerin özel durumunda aranmalıdır. Bu nedenle yaş küçüklüğü, bağımsız bir indirim nedeni olarak TBK m 51/1’e (OR Art 43/1) göre “durumun gereği” kapsamında değerlendirilmelidir.
Reviews on the Characteristic of the Liability for Tort Through Fault of a Minor Possessing the Capacity of Judgment
Hülya Atlan GürerIn Turkish law and its reference Swiss law, minors who possess the capacity of judgment are liable for tort through fault. In this sense, legislators do not discriminate between minors’ limited incapacity and adults’ full capacity to act in terms of tort liability. However, this statute does not prevent the consideration of the characteristics of children, who are protected at the constitutional and international level. In this sense, these characteristics that arise from a debtor’s minor should be considered, both at the phase when liability arises as well as when determining the damages. Above all, in order for a liability to arise, the minor must be determined to possess the capacity of judgment. Contrary to adults, the presumption of the capacity of judgment is not valid for minors and can be quite difficult to determine in some cases. Though consideration is to be made according to each concrete case in this regard, the age ratings accepted in doctrine and in judicial practice can be used as a guideline when determining the capacity of judgment. These age ratings are supplementary sources for guiding a judge in terms of determining the capacity of judgment.
In addition to the moment when liability arises, the characteristics of a minor as debtor, should also be considered at the stage when determining damages. Consideration of their characteristics arises from the fact that being a minor is considered a reason for reducing the determined damages. Although no certainty on this matter exists in the code, being a minor is considered as a reason for reducing damages based on the doctrine of slight fault. Accepting the basis of the reduction in damages as the doctrine of slight fault is an insufficient justification that may also lead to inaccurate conclusions in some respects. The basis of the reduction should not be considered in terms of the grossness of fault but rather in terms of the characteristics of the minor themself. For this reason, minority should be considered as a distinct cause of reduction within the scope of the circumstance, as stipulated by Art. 51/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Art. 43/1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations).
Whether or not a minor is to be held liable for tort through fault and what the scope of a minor’s liability is remains a legal policy issue. Therefore, the rules on this matter differ in every legal order according to how minors are approached. According to Turkish and Swiss law, minors possessing the capacity of judgment are liable in tort. Thus, with regard to liability in tort, these minors are considered equivalent to adults who possess the full capacity to act. However, this does not mean that the characteristics of minors are not to be considered in terms of any liability in tort. The legal order protecting minors requires their benefit to also be considered in the field of liability law. For this reason, in cases where a minor is liable for damages, the minor’s characteristics need to be considered both in regard to when liability arises and when determining damages.
The first phase, which determines when liability arose, requires examining the minor’s characteristics in terms of determining whether the minor possesses the capacity of judgment. In Turkish law, liability of a minor for a fault is based on the presence of the capacity of judgment. Thus, determining a minor’s capacity of judgment in concrete cases becomes a very delicate matter. The Turkish and Swiss civil codes contain no provisions regarding how to determine when a minor possesses the capacity of judgment. Unlike the German Civil Code, the Turkish and Swiss civil codes stipulate no strict age limit regarding a minor’s capacity for tort liability. Therefore, an assessment should be made on this matter in accordance with each concrete case. Age is the most crucial element of this assessment. For this reason, although neither Turkish nor Swiss civil law stipulate a strict age limit in terms of a minor’s capacity for tort liability, in doctrine and judicial practice, some age ratings have been considered for determining the capacity of judgment. In this context, capacity of judgment has been suggested to be ratable, with reduced capacity of judgment having been created as a third category between the presence and nonpresence of capacity of judgment. However, no need is found to create such a concept during the stage of determining when liability arose. This because Turkish law does not differentiate between full and reduced capacity of judgment, and even the presence of a slight fault is sufficient for liability to arise. A minor who has been identified as possessing the capacity of judgment (even at a reduced capacity) is to be held liable for tort. When determining damages, however, being a minor is considered a reason for reducing damages.
Consequently, a minor’s capacity of judgment should be determined in Turkish law by considering all the other characteristics of the concrete case, as well as the factor of age. Instead of legally stipulating a strict age rating regarding capacity of judgment, this determination can be based on age ratings that are accepted in doctrine and in judicial practice. These age ratings are supplementary sources for guiding a judge in terms of determining capacity of judgment. This will serve to ensure both justice in the concrete case as well as legal security, as the other characteristics of the concrete case will be able to be considered alongside age.
Another characteristic of the liability for tort through fault of a minor as debtor arises at the stage of determining damages. Turkish and Swiss legal doctrines are of the prevailing opinion that, if a child is found liable, damages should be reduced due to being a minor, as based on the doctrine of slight fault. Thus, filling the deficiency that arises from the lack of any explicit legal provision on this matter is expediently attempted through doctrine and judicial practice. However, explaining the doctrine of slight fault as the basis for reducing damages within the scope of “grossness of fault” as stipulated by Art. 51/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (see also Art 43/1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations) is unsatisfactory. This is simply because the presence of slight fault does not automatically lead to a reduction in damage as commonly accepted. In order to reduce damages through slight fault, other characteristics of the concrete case should justify the reduction. Therefore, considering the slight fault alone may be insufficient to ensure that being a minor is considered a factor affecting the damage amounts in any case. For this reason, being a minor should be considered a distinct reason for reduction within the scope of the circumstances stipulated by Art. 51/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. The basis for reduction should be the distinction between minor and child rather than grossness of fault. From this study’s point of view, accepting being a minor as a reason for reducing damages is based on the idea of protecting the child, which in turn derives from the Constitution and various international treaties and documents. The best interest and protection of a child require the minor’s age to be considered as the reason for reduction when determining the amount of damages, the minor is obliged to pay. The basis for this in liability law should be the circumstance, as stipulated by Art. 51/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.
